basecamp_get_project_dock

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a 'clean map' of dock tool IDs and lists the included types, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't describe error behavior, permissions, or return format details beyond being a map.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with a clear front-loaded purpose and a practical usage note. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple single-parameter interface and lack of output schema, the description covers the needed bases: what the tool does, what it returns (a map of dock IDs), and what it's for. It lacks explicit return type details, but the term 'map' plus the enumerations provide enough context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with a description for project_id ('Project ID'). The tool description doesn't add any further detail about parameter formats or constraints, so it adds no value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'dock tool IDs for a project' and enumerates the dock types. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like basecamp_get_project or basecamp_get_todoset, making the tool's unique purpose obvious.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The second sentence explicitly states 'Use this to quickly find tool IDs needed by other endpoints,' giving clear context for when to call this tool. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the stated use case is sufficient for basic guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.